Originally Posted by Litotes
Certainly not. I lost interest. If you consider the two the same, then that explains your stubbornness. The last word always wins, no matter how pointless? Fine, make any sort of reply and declare yourself winner once more, if it makes you happier.
You lost the argument because you failed to show that I blindly follow Sampras.
Originally Posted by Singularity
No, the comparison is between believing a prediction to be 'true' or 'very likely' and reserving judgement. Sampras may have more tennis knowledge than "Roy Emerson", and if forced to choose between them, it may be rational to believe Sampras.
But the point is you are not forced to choose between them. If Sampras has not established that he can make accurate tennis predictions, then the most rational thing to do would be to not believe him either. You simply hold up your hands in the air and say "I don't know".
On 01-14-2013 you stated this:
"If Sampras does not make accurate predictions about future tennis events, then there is no reason to believe what he says is correct here.
Clearly, you were referring to my claim that I believe Sampras. In my previous post I explained what I meant
when I said that I believe Sampras.